Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday December 06, 2012 @07:44PM
from the sticks-and-stones dept.

First time accepted submitter VegetativeState writes "Jane Perez hired a construction company and was not happy with the work they did and alleged some of her jewelry was stolen. She submitted reviews on Yelp and Angie's List, giving the company all F's. The contractor is now suing her for $750,000. From the article: 'Dietz, the owner of Dietz Development, filed the Internet defamation lawsuit filed last month, stating that "plaintiffs have been harmed by these statements, including lost work opportunities, insult, mental suffering, being placed in fear, anxiety, and harm to their reputations."
Perez's Yelp review accused the company of damaging her home, charging her for work that wasn't done and of losing jewelry. The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices. According to the recent filing, the two were high school classmates.'"

I'm not a fancy lawyer or nothing; but this [citmedialaw.org] suggests that it could.

Specifically: "In Virginia, a statement that does any of the following things amounts to defamation per se:(some irrelevant ones omitted)hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade."

A nasty yelp review would reasonably seem to be something that would hurt a contractor in their profession or trade. However, in order to be defamatory, the statement has to be a false statement of fact. If what she says turns out to be substantially true, he can just go cry about it(and "Nasty yelp review upheld in court of law" probably doesn't help your PR any). If she is lying or terribly ill-supported, though...

You're confusing criminal law and civil; as the defendant she's the one with the burden of proof.

Nitpick: Since this is civil court, she doesn't have to "prove" anything. She just has to present enough evidence to show that her accusations are probably true. A "preponderance of the evidence", is a much lower hurdle than the "no reasonable doubt" standard of criminal court.

In both criminal court and in civil court, the plaintiff, not the defendant, has to prove his case. It's still known as the "burden of proof," regardless of whether the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt as in a criminal proceeding or in civil court where the standard is usually preponderance of the evidence [wikipedia.org]. To have a prima facie case, the plaintiff has to establish all the elements of a defamation suit by the preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff can't do that, case dismissed.

Huh? In both criminal and civil courts in common law systems (e.g. the UK and the US, including Virginia), the burden of proof is on the person bringing the suit - the state for criminal cases, and the plaintiff for civil cases.

You're certainly wrong in the UK. For libel the plaintiff has to prove they have been financially damaged by the statement. It is then up to the defendant to show that what they wrote was true. If they can't show it was true, the plaintiff wins.

In other words you can only publicly write damaging things about people if you can show them to be true.

It's not up to the person that has been defamed to show they are not true.

He would only need to prove that it there were lies on her part that were substantial. He would not need to prove the entire review false. He would not need to prove her jewelry was not stolen.
Statements like "I think he did a poor job" or "he was rude" are acceptable if true and hard to disprove.

A review score is an opinion. Her unhappyness is also an opinion. He would have to show the fact statements in the review were lies. Specifically he would have to prove that Jewelry was not stolen.

That's far from the only "fact", there's at least three in the summary that are not opinion

Perez's Yelp review accused the company of1. damaging her home,2. charging her for work that wasn't done and3. of losing jewelry.

Those are all matters of fact, not opinion the court could look into. Also, this is a civil case not a criminal trial so the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Can she offer any evidence she had the jewels? Did she file a police complaint? The court system won't just take her word for it, if she's just throwing out accusations without a shred of evidence he might not have to prove a thing and still win. After all, how could he prove that jewels that doesn't exist haven't gone missing?

Why would they do that? That would be an open invitation for every rival organization in town to post patently false statements about every other organization, all without having to concern themselves with the fact that they're engaging in libel. Placing the burden on the reviewer is the right way to handle this, since it ensures that there is pressure on them to only report facts that are accurate representations of what took place. It's work fine up until now, but without that liability, everything would fall apart.

Again, why would they do that? I believe it's already standard practice for the defendant to simply countersue the plaintiff in order to recover their legal costs, so the idea is unnecessary in the first place. And if Yelp extends an open invitation to pay legal fees in case of a victory, they'd still be encouraging the behavior I already described.

If I was a rival of a competing company, I could post borderline libelous statements that make them look horrible but probably won't be ruled against in court. T

If posting to Yelp is a huge financial risk, the site will quickly die.

Sadly, it looks like they're going the other way.

Here's the Yelp page for Dietz Development [yelp.com]. Look at the reviews and you can see that Yelp has been censoring them pretty heavily. All of them are from the last day or two and the review in question has been removed.

This was a great opportunity for Yelp to stand up for consumer rights and freedoms, but instead they've stuck their head in the sand. Even if they'd put a notice at the top of her review saying that "the statements here are not those of Yelp's, blah blah blah lawyer speak" that would have been fine. However, they've shown they have no backbone and won't stand behind their users.

What if Slashdot editors deleted comments anytime somebody looked at them wrong; what effect would that have on the quantity and quality of the discussion here? There's only been a tiny handful of times that a comment here has been censored -- hopefully it stays that way.

I've never used Yelp before because I wasn't real familiar with them. Now that I am I'll never use them in the future.

Just found the actual comment she left via the Daily Mail [dailymail.co.uk]:

This is the text of Perez's original review posted on Angie's List in August 2012.

Overall: F

Price: F

Quality: F

Responsiveness: F

Punctuality: F

Professionalism: F

Description Of Work: Dietz Development was to perform: painting, refinish floors, electrical, plumbing and handyman work. I was instead left with damage to my home and work that had to be reaccomplished for thousands more than originally estimated.

Member comments: My home was damaged' the "work" had to be re-accomplished; and Dietz tried to sue me for "monies due for his "work." I won in summary judgement (meaning that his case had no merit). Despite his claims, Dietz was/is not licensed to perform work in the state of VA. Further, he invoiced me for work not even performed and also sued me for work not even performed. Today (six months later) he just showed up at my door and '"wanted to talk to me." I said that I "didn't want to talk to him," closed the door , and called the police. (The police said his reason was that he had a "lien on my house"; however this "lien" was made null and void the day I won the case according to the court.) This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. Bottom line do not put yourself through this nightmare of a contractor.

If that kind of review is worth $750,000 in damages then the Internet is boned. I thought the RIAA's damage calculations were bad -- There must be a trillion dollars worth of "harmful" reviews for places on Google Maps alone!

Before we get too excited about ruined businesses, it's best to remember that Yelp has a fairly enthusiastic but narrow user base. I'd be surprised if even 2% of the contractor's potential clients had read the review (before the Streisand Effect kicked in of course).

Actually, that last bit about stealing the jewelry is totally uncalled for and people need to learn not to make such unsubstantiated accusations on the internet.

" This is after filing my first ever police report when I found my jewelry missing and Dietz was the only one with a key. " What's wrong with that? Are you asserting that she had filed other police reports? That her jewlery was never missing? Or that she never filed a police report? She did not accuse them of anything, nor did she say they stole anything. She obviously suspects they did, and appropriately filed a police report to investigate. I'd say that of everything in there, that's one of the lea

Here's the Yelp page for Dietz Development [yelp.com]. Look at the reviews and you can see that Yelp has been censoring them pretty heavily. All of them are from the last day or two and the review in question has been removed.

This was a great opportunity for Yelp to stand up for consumer rights and freedoms, but instead they've stuck their head in the sand. Even if they'd put a notice at the top of her review saying that "the statements here are not those of Yelp's, blah blah blah lawyer speak" that would have been fine. However, they've shown they have no backbone and won't stand behind their users.

What if Slashdot editors deleted comments anytime somebody looked at them wrong; what effect would that have on the quantity and quality of the discussion here? There's only been a tiny handful of times that a comment here has been censored -- hopefully it stays that way.

I've never used Yelp before because I wasn't real familiar with them. Now that I am I'll never use them in the future.

that's not quite accurate.

Yelp uses an automated algorithm to filter out some posts: "How do you decide which reviews to filter?
We use filtering software to determine which reviews should be filtered on any given day among the millions that are submitted to the site. The software looks at a wide range of data associated with every review. We invite you to watch this short video for more detail about how it all works."
http://www.yelp.com/faq#why_filter [yelp.com]

as a site dedicated to enabling ordinary people to post reviews about businesses in their own communities, Yelp provides a great service for consumers. but Yelp also has its own concern to try to keep reviews on its site relevant as much as possible. it doesn't serve anyone to allow users to publish reviews that have little to no connection to the actual businesses being reviewed. Yelp's reputation for being a place where you can get low-noise, high-signal reviews is on the line. and having too much noise as compared to actual signal does not serve Yelp's users either, as they won't get a reasonably accurate picture of businesses reviewed on the site.

i'll acknowledge that Yelp is treading a fine line here. i think they understand that. but to say that Yelp is "undermining consumer rights and freedoms" here is completely unfair and unabashedly silly. filtered posts can still be seen if you click on a link below the reviews. Yelp explains why they have been filtered but still allows users to access said posts.

and even then, if you go to Dietz Development's page now, there are a slew of negative reviews, completely unfiltered, that have nothing to do with Dietz Development's services or customer relations. most of them are backlash "internet badass" posts shaming Dietz for suing. while allowing people to review businesses like Dietz and provide said reviews online for the public is a general good, allowing for higher noise to signal and for reviews that have little to do with the actual quality of a company is not.

there was a Florida pizza restaurant President Obama visited during this year's Presidential campaign. the owner of the restaurant was, apparently, a conservative, but he was excited to host the President all the same and even gave Obama a hug. as a result, hundreds of trolls crashed the restaurant owner's Yelp page and posted negative review after negative review [npr.org]. many of the "reviewers" acknowledged never having eaten at the restaurant. some of the "reviewers" had never been to Florida. would you say Yelp should keep all those "noise" posts anyway? i would argue no. the posts were marginally-relevant, if at all, to the actual pizza restaurant, the quality

1. The complaint/lawsuit for restoration of damage to her house?2. The complaint/lawsuit for the work that was not done (but apparently billed)?3. The police report/lawsuit detailing the theft of the jewelry?

All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only and not following through in the correct legal channels gives credence to the lawsuit against her.

So WTF is this doing on/. anyway? This just seems like it is here because it's a typical lawsuit but a computer is involved

The only thing that pisses me off about this is how much they are suing for. There is no way someone can pay that amount of money back in their lifetime, and they surely didn't do that much damage to you. Why aren't these sort of things set at a limit? If they are, why is it so bloody high?

Because, in the US, you can sue for any reason (even faulty reasoning or unactionable claims) with any stipulation on what you are seeking, generally speaking. Different localities have differing laws to mitigate this type of stupidity, but I guess not that county.

Online reviews are a pretty big part of the internet. Yelp is one of the most popular websites on the internet.

If writing a review or using Yelp can get you sued for $750k then that would have huge ramifications for internet users and prominent internet companies like Yelp.

It also illustrates the interesting new territory we enter where users are demanding the rights of "media" and being granted publishing rights but not educated in the rules and practices that protect you as a publisher. Part of breaking down and democratizing the access to global access and speech is that suddenly everyone is a publisher not just from a power standpoint but also from a legal and liability standpoint.

> All of the above are things that should be taken seriously if> they actually happened. Complaining on Yelp/Angies List only> and not following through in the correct legal channels gives> credence to the lawsuit against her.

Well, the sucky thing is that there are TONS of things that are true, but not provable. I've been fucked over MANY times by contractors and workers, but none of it is provable because I didn't get whatever they promised in writing, didn't take certified before and after pic

According to the review on Yelp, she won a summary judgement on a civil lawsuit the contractor filed. She did file a police report, but only after he showed up on her door step to "talk" after she won the judgement. Nothing was mentioned regarding criminal charges.

Reading the review, the only thing that I don't think could be substantiated in the review was that he stole her jewelry. She never comes out and says he did, but implies it by saying the jewelry was missing and he was the only other one with a key.

This sounds like a S.L.A.P.P. suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Basically, if someone fucks you over and you speak out about it, they sometimes retaliate by suing you. The plaintiff gambles on the likelihood that the victim will just slink away rather than go through an emotionally-damaging (and expensive) legal battle and the bad guy basically wins. These lawsuits are weapons... it's not about justice.

He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.

I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore. Could it possibly be that the whole crap has NOTHING to do with his work, her jewelry or anything but two kids who somehow crossed each other at high school (e.g. one wanted to go out with the other but got rejected) and who didn't grow out of it, and now they're clogging the courts with their childish bickering?

He sued her over unpaid invoices. She hired him again. He accepted work from someone who didn't pay bills before.

How do you know this? We know there was an earlier suit over unpaid bills. We know there was a review claiming damages to the home and lost jewelry. We don't know that she hired him again after the first lawsuit or that he accepted a second job. For all we know the bad review was a poor attempt at getting back at the contractor for the earlier lawsuit.

I really have no idea why they even WANT to do business with each other anymore.

You have no idea that they want to do business with each other anymore, so wondering why they want to is a bit premature.

Contractors are people you don't screw around with. Some states, like Texas, allow contractors (even auto repair shops) to put a lien on your property if you do not pay them. The fine print of some Mortgage Loans require that you notify them immediately if any liens are placed on the property. Failure to comply might allow the mortgage lender to force you to buy absurdly priced insurance (like 3x-4x market rate) from their selected insurer. Then you have all the hassle of clearing up the title and being unable to sell the property until things are properly cleaned up.

I've personally had a case where a contractor vanished but all his sub-contractors continued to work and deliver materials. The contractor didn't pay them so we had to. At least the sub-contractors got paid for the work they did do (which was quite excellent). We had to sue the contractor's company and get a judgement. There's nothing to collect, however, and the owner is now in prison. Not because of his dealings with us but because he decided to pretend to be a cop, lure "models" to a hotel, then sexually assault them while threatening arrest. Had to do a double-take on the evening news when his portrait was on the screen along with his full name.

Most people here constantly posts their opinions on people and companies relating to every article that passes through. While alot of us back up our posts with facts (as we know them) and links, but we're all basically doing the exact same thing she is.
My opinion is that she falls in the same category as any of us. That being said what she posted I think should be protected by law unless perhaps she knowingly made up some of her claims. As long as she believed her claims to be true (regardless of w

Since Slashdot launched there have been hundreds of articles dealing with conflicts over speech.And each article usually has a couple of dozen people explaining what 'freedom of speech' means in the context of law and government.And yet the same asinine "But it's freedom of speech!" comments pop up every single time.

Do these people read the summary, post, and then never read a single comment therefore remaining ignorant of what it is they're wrong about?

This isn't about the government restricting freedom of speech. This is an individual making a statement, and being sued by they object of that statement. This is speech with consequences, not censorship. The court will then decide whether the plaintiff or the defendant are in the right.

So, if you read the WaPo story, it mentions that the defendant is from Fairfax and the contractor/plaintiff is from DC itself. Fairfax, for those who don't know, is in the Northern Virginia area agglomeration of "cities" along I-66 where people who work in the District and don't want to deal with the clusterfuck that is DC live. (Then they only have to deal with the clusterfuck that is commuting to DC, but they can at least live in jurisdictions with saner laws and have decent schools to send their kids to.)

I have lived in DC for a year, and a relative has lived here for many years. She recently wanted to have some work done on her house, and caught the contractor shooting speedballs (heroin/cocaine) in her bathroom, then running up and down the stairs and onto the roof while under the effects. This didn't surprise me, really, at all; given how much of *that* goes on, I don't doubt the allegations are true.

This town is a shithole, and it's a shithole full of people who will sue anyone at the drop of a hat for anything, or really take any opportunity to get ahead at someone else's expense, fair or not. "Slit Grandma's throat for a nickel" isn't just an exaggeration around here. The phone books have a "You could sue a doctor and make a pile of money! Call us!" ads on the spine; there are ambulance-chaser billboards all over; etc.

Yes, but you can easily make the case that objectively false statements (as were made in this case) on a website intended to guide people in choosing a vendor are inherently malicious. It's not a casual conversation; it's going to a place whose sole purpose is to drive business towards or away vendors, and making untruthful statements. The woman didn't just give her opinion, but make non-subjective statements that were false on a website that she knew was a basis for reputation. That meets the standard for malice in my book.

Unlike writing a review saying a game is "bad", it's often far easier to define "bad work" in construction in any of several categories. In a sense construction is one of the more notorious fields that shysters can lurk in, and this has resulted in some basic protections for both sides. So let's say she wanted a room painted, if anything the construction company did wasn't up to code, BOOM, it's "bad work". Or, presuming they did their contracting process right, it may be valid work, but if they didn't actu

Close. It would have to be false, malicious, and a provable statement of fact. There are plenty of situations in which someone could express an opinion about you which was both defamatory and completely unprovable.

How on earth was she supposed to prove it? Let me give the context for this. My wife and I met with a certain kind of medical professional after our first son was born. This person said things to us that we found profoundly disturbing. After deliberating about it, my wife decided to file a complaint with the board which certifies people who work in this profession. It wasn't like badmouthing somebody on the Internet or in the newspaper, it was this formal process. Now obviously, when you file a complaint you have to describe what happened, which my wife did.

The board apparently studied our complaint and took some kind of action against this person (something mild, I don't remember exactly, but we got something in the mail about it). A couple of months later my wife was served with the lawsuit.

At the time, we had very little capacity to pay a high-priced lawyer. The person was asking for $150,000! So on a long shot we called our homeowner's insurance company and it turned out they would defend the case under our insurance policy. I have no idea if the attorney sucked, didn't care, or if something else went wrong but the jury found in favor of plaintiff for $5k. Our insurance company paid, but it was a disgusting experience.

I found out later that this woman has a history of serial lawsuits. Not long after our case ended, she sued the board which had sanctioned her. I know this, because she fucking subpoenaed me as a witness in that case. Did I mention she was representing herself? She asked me a bunch of nutty questions for two hours which I had no idea about -- like asking me to tell her what I thought some email meant, which I had never seen before (it had nothing to do with me or my wife).

I don't know what happened after that. What a terrible shitty thing it was. Makes you scared to speak up when somebody is abusive to you. We got slimed.

You are mistaken as regards libel. If she made an allegation on a matter of fact, she has to be able to show it is true. It's not up to him to show it was false.

>

well, no. the plaintiff in a civil suit has the burden of proving his case. that the statements in question are false is one of the elements of defamation, and therefore the plaintiff must, in fact, be able to show that the statements were false. He cant just stand up and say 'Nuh-UH' and mysteriously shift the burden of proof to the defendant.

'allegations on matters of fact' are all that defamation is concerned with. if its not an assertion of fact, its an opinion, and therefore protected as free speech. A

In the US for civil suits alleging libel the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In the UK it is actually on the defendant. In general the US is pretty liberal regarding freedom of speech - winning a case of libel is not a trivial matter unless it is pretty blatant.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of examples of civil actions brought by private parties in which the burden of proof lies with the defendant.

There certainly are cases where regulations require a company to maintain certain records for inspection

Truth isn't always a defense against defamation in all jurisdictions. The statement "I think they might have stolen my stuff" is obviously true (she really does think this), as is the statement "I think you are sexually attracted to sheep" (let say for arguments sake that i really do think that). If I posted that somewhere and you were in a job that involved sheep and your job opportunities suffered because of it then it could be deemed to have defamed you without actually lying...

That's not entirely true. Truth is a defense in England it's just not a complete defense. If you say something that is false you're screwed, but something true also has to be the intended audience's business, at least as far as I understand it(the law here in Oz is similar). So if you were to post on the internet that you're next door neighbor is a transvestite, you could be sued for libel, even if it's true because it's no one's business that he's a transvestite. Essentially just because something is true doesn't mean you should say it. Libertarians like the creators of South Park tend to see this as a travesty of freedom, and it certainly can be if the court takes it that way, but it does provide some protection for privacy which US law simply does not provide. There are the usual exceptions for public figures and politicians (if your member of parliament cheats on his wife it's considered in the public interest where the same information about Joe Blogs from down the street isn't). It's actually quite a reasonable approach to the law IMHO.

That said of course in this particular case, while IANAL, I would guess that this woman's situation would be the same in the US and the UK as in this context she'd most likely have a right to share this particular information(the performance of a service provider is the business of people interested in hiring said service provider). She'd simply need to prove that her statements were true(most of them anyway, property damage and an incomplete job would probably cover her even if she obviously can't prove the jewelry loss).

I don't know why Slashdot seems to think that truth is not a defense for defamation in English common law. It's been quite a few years, but if I remember correctly, when I studied English law (I come from a jurisdiction that inherits it), truth was a "complete" defense -- and particularly there really is no "intended audience business" crap.

Your transvestite example may hit some privacy or antidiscrimination laws or hate crimes or that kind of thing (I have no idea), but as far as English common law of defa

An "allowable defense" is not the same thing as an "absolute defense", nor is it a "barrier to litigation". Also, that's civil--under some circumstances truth is not even an allowable defense for criminal defamation--or it was, if you google you'll quickly find a 2011 article in The Guardian about proposed changes to British defamation law to bring it more in line with the rest of the civilized world, but no follow-up as to whether the changes ever happened.

Lawyers in the UK aren't free, and there are plenty of lower-cost lawyers in the US. It is true that court costs have been going up as government funding for the courts goes down, creating barriers to access to justice for plaintiffs and defendants alike -- perhaps somewhat ironically, this is in part because the courts are an easy target due to the blithely-swallowed meme that America is particularly litigious, and/or that civil litigation is some kind of ticket to easy street. And it is certainly also true that big fish sometimes play dirty tricks like burying the other side in paperwork to strong-arm a settlement, but, again, that's not inherent to the US system, and a clever lawyer can find cost-effective ways to protect his or her client's interests.

But perpetuating the meme that there is no real justice in the US is precisely the sort of thing that allows the politicians to get away with undercutting the justice system. The public doesn't trust judges or lawyers, so the politicians have an easy target when it's time for budget negotiations, and the entire civil justice system suffers for it. So funny enough, by disparaging the US court system (without offering any actual facts, statistics, or comparative surveys of US versus UK litigation, naturally), you're perpetuating the ignorant, unfair stereotypes about it that eventually result in actual harm to overall justice. But hey, what do you care -- not like you're an American who's gonna be hurt by it, right?

You know what you call the party who hires a "lower-cost" lawyer? The LOSER. You may as well not show up and lose by default, at least then you don't have to pay the lawyer.

Ahhhhhhh, now I get it. Here I thought you were just an ill-informed, disgruntled anti-lawyer type, but now I see that you're actually a big firm lawyer trying to justify your ludicrous rates. I used to work in a big law firm with lots of people like you. Even thought I liked it, didn't want to get laid off when the recession hit. Years later and working for a small firm that charges actually affordable rates, pays me a lot less, and lets me have as much of a life as I want, I realize now how completely fucking miserable I was in biglaw, as were the vast majority of the other lawyers I worked with.

If there's any part of you that can still be gotten through to, please listen, friend: it's never too late to get out. I promise you, it's not as scary out here as you think it is. There is life on the other side of the thousand-pound billable hour, and it's pretty goddamned good.

The first amendment has been interpreted by common and case law to not protect you in cases of slander or libel.
If you're arguing for an entirely literal interpretation of the first amendment well then I'm not entirely sure what to tell you.

Mother Teresa was responsible for many more deaths than lives she helped. Her fanatic opposition to birth control (yeah, I know she was Catholic) combined with her fame, political power, and control over funding meant that she was able to completely block even the most basic birth control use, condoms. The result was spread of disease (esp. HIV) and many unwanted pregnancies, largely causing the overpopulation, poverty, malnutrition, and early childhood death that she was supposed to be so committed to st

Free speech doesn't mean no consequences. Libel and Slander are two very well known examples of situations where your speech has consequences.

This will hinge on proving that her statements (particularly about the stolen jewelry) were true. If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.

Freedom of Speech has NOTHING to do with this case. Freedom of Speech applies only to the governments ability to restrict speech and doesn't apply to what you can say in an online forum. If what she said is in fact true then libel doesn't apply because truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

When you ask a court, i.e., the government, to require someone to pay you money for having said something, you are asking the government to punish someone for having spoken, based on the content of that speech -- in other words, PRECISELY the sort of thing that the First Amendment addresses
Not.
The First Amendment guarantees that the government will not limit your speech. It does not guarantee that you won't have to buy airtime or a printing press to make your speech. It does not guarantee that you won't

"The lawsuit follows an earlier case against Perez, which was filed in July 2011 by Dietz for unpaid invoices."

Wouldn't that earlier suit have needed to prove that the work was done to satisfy the original contract in order for the court to order her to pay the bills? I want to see what the outcome of that case was - her negative reviews may have been a case of "sour grapes" over being ordered to pay a bill that was legitimately owed, or they could be follow-up to an actually shoddy job.

If they were, then she's protected by free speech. If they prove to have been false, then she's screwed.

That's what I like about this story. I don't know the facts of the case, I don't know which side is in the right. But if they disagree with the review then they're right to sue her frankly, and there will most likely be one of two outcomes. Either she wins, and she gets to change her review to say that her claims have been upheld, or she loses and has to remove the review and face a penalty. At this point, with how little I know about the case, I'm OK with either outcome.

Freedom of speech means you are allowed to say it, not that you aren't then responsible for what you said. If you say something slanderous, defame someone you are still liable to be held accountable for your statements, but you can still live in the joy of being able to go out right afterwards, say it all again and start the process over.

Not sure what this has to do with nerd news, but I'm pretty sure the solution to all this is to arm the two parties and face them off at 10 feet rather than utilize my taxes and plug up my courtrooms that have more important issues to deal with than controlling the financial activities of two random submorons.